Brawl - More balanced than Melee? Lie or truth?

[Thingy Person]

This Is Why I Hate Smashboards.

...That was all caps.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

This Is Why I Hate Smashboards.

...That was all caps.

AND THIS IS WHY SMASHBOARDS HATES YOU.

Smooth Criminal

 

[The Halloween Captain]

It might just be because the cast is larger, but it seems like Brawl has more viable characters than melee. Also, I don't know how I forgot Marth, but I was typing my last post on my wii, five minutes before I left the house, so I was a little rushed.

Where does everyone get Pika's viability in melee from? Pika has a lot of trouble with space animals in melee, and is generally outranged by Marth. Those are like the three most common characters in melee's metagame, which really destroyed Pika's competitive viability.

 

[RDK]

It might just be because the cast is larger, but it seems like Brawl has more viable characters than melee. Also, I don't know how I forgot Marth, but I was typing my last post on my wii, five minutes before I left the house, so I was a little rushed.

V

Point being, the middle and bottom tiers are, for all intents and purposes, not viable. The mids are only viable against themselves, and the highs and top are basically viable against everyone else, with a handful of soft counters and disadvantageous matchups here and there.

Where does everyone get Pika's viability in melee from? Pika has a lot of trouble with space animals in melee, and is generally outranged by Marth. Those are like the three most common characters in melee's metagame, which really destroyed Pika's competitive viability.

Basically every character was viable. The only ones I'd have qualms about are M2, Kirby, and Pichu.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Just those three? The fact that about five people in the world can place well with a bad character like Bowser makes them exceptional players, but it doesn't change the fact that they use a terrible character that is only viable because the players are awesome, which makes up for the numerous shortcomings of melee's lower tiers.

In other words, melee's lower tiers were really not viable, but the players who used low tiers were well above everyone else's skill level. They had to work much harder with their character.

Besides, it is way to early in Brawl's metagame to say the low tiers aren't viable, if you are using people like GimpyFish, who tend to appear on the tournament scene out of nowhere AFTER TWO YEARS, to prove that melee's lower tiers are viable.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

Basically every character was viable. The only ones I'd have qualms about are M2, Kirby, and Pichu.

What do you define as viable? Do you mean capable of winning tournaments, or just doing well at tourneys in general?

Seems to be the same in Melee and Brawl imo; a few extremely dominant characters, several less-viable characters and then a few bottom of the barrel characters

 

[motsalogeL]

You Noobs Its All about Skill Not The Character IO!!!11!

 

[RDK]

Just those three? The fact that about five people in the world can place well with a bad character like Bowser makes them exceptional players, but it doesn't change the fact that they use a terrible character that is only viable because the players are awesome, which makes up for the numerous shortcomings of melee's lower tiers.

It doesn't really matter. We're discussing whether they're tournament viable or not, and they clearly are if numerous low-tier mainers can place fairly high with them in well-known tournaments.

If you're convinced Bowser's such a bad character and that it took amazing people to play and win with him in tournaments, then go and try it for yourself. The point is that Melee's bad characters had way more of a chance than Brawl's bad characters. C. Falcon doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at competing at a tournament mostly comprised of Snakes and MK's, no matter the skill level.

And when you get down to it, that's really the point. In Melee, the distance between the tops and the lows was much smaller than in Brawl; meaning that two people around the same skill level could play a Fox vs. M2 match, and the M2 would be a lot better off than say a C. Falcon vs. Snake. Balance is what it's all about. Brawl is unbalanced.

In other words, melee's lower tiers were really not viable, but the players who used low tiers were well above everyone else's skill level. They had to work much harder with their character.

Wait, what? Just above you said that they were viable, but only so because the people using them are exceptional.

but it doesn't change the fact that they use a terrible character that is only viable because the players are awesome

Either they're viable or they're not. That's the point at hand. Of course it depends on who's using them; saying Bowswer isn't viable because only a few amazing players use him is like saying Snake is terrible because a bunch of Joe Blows place consistently low on the entry list at every Brawl tournament.

Besides, it is way to early in Brawl's metagame to say the low tiers aren't viable, if you are using people like GimpyFish, who tend to appear on the tournament scene out of nowhere AFTER TWO YEARS, to prove that melee's lower tiers are viable.

It's really not. How many times does this have to be said? Brawl's metagame =/= Melee's metagame. They're worlds apart when it comes to depth and technicality. Unless some discovery of mammoth proportions comes out to make Brawl into something less shallow and more balanced, I highly doubt the tier list will change much after its first iteration.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

RKD - Obviously Bowser was used with some success in tournaments because of people like Gimpy. That does not make Bowser good. Likewise, Captain Falcon can be used well enough to make Ankoku's ranking list at least once in a while. That does not mean Captain Falcon has significant potential. Also, with new character specific ATs being found rapidly and often, and the speed at which GW went from ignored to viable to broken, it is foolish to say Brawl's metagame won't evolve.

 

[Samochan]

Well in melee, if fox makes like 10 mistakes, kirby can at least punish half of them reasonably well and even kirby had the means of gimping his opponents, deal some damage and options to choose from. While in brawl, if metaknight makes the same 10 mistakes, falcon might be able to punish 1 of them and deal what, 1 hit? And that's it. There's no options for the worse characters, in melee you could do bazillion things to get the result you wanted and close the gap if you just played well. The game rewards you if you make few mistakes and play smart, there is always room to punish someone from their actions if you just do the right thing. On brawl however, how in the world is falcon gonna punish snake's filt from shield, even if he powershields it? And falcon's qualities and options of approaching are so bad, snake hardly needs to powershield, let alone shield, to punish falcon from even trying. That's not exacly fair now is it. On melee the better characters have more effective means of punishing, but even the worst characters are never out of options. If I can punish Marth's shielded fsmash with peach, I can do it with kirby too. On brawl worst chars have nothing to close the gap with, nothing to abuse falcon's knee with or make it hit better or make it lag less. Kirby on melee has means of using the **** stone, cutter and hammer in somewhat effective manner. I don't see how with brawl mechanics, falcon could make the best out of his moves.

 

[RDK]

What do you define as viable? Do you mean capable of winning tournaments, or just doing well at tourneys in general?

Seems to be the same in Melee and Brawl imo; a few extremely dominant characters, several less-viable characters and then a few bottom of the barrel characters

This is an incredibly vague statement, and you're just being contrary.

The fact is that the lows and bottoms of Melee had a better shot at beating the highs and tops than do the same groups in Brawl. I.E., Melee was more balanced.

 

[viparagon]

I think that brawl is more balanced than melee, but all the characters just have less potential in general. By ulilizing melee's ATs, it was possible to b fairly effective with crappy chars. In brawl, characters are already figured out for the most part, so it is harder to win with someone like captain falcon.

^discuss plz^

 

[TehBo49]

What do you define as viable? Do you mean capable of winning tournaments, or just doing well at tourneys in general?

Seems to be the same in Melee and Brawl imo; a few extremely dominant characters, several less-viable characters and then a few bottom of the barrel characters

IMO any character who isn't absolutely destroyed by the higher tiers (or any other viable characters) is viable. By absolutely destroyed, I mean they beat/go even with other viables & don't have a lot of 8-2 or worse matchups.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

IMO any character who isn't absolutely destroyed by the higher tiers (or any other viable characters) is viable. By absolutely destroyed, I mean they beat/go even with other viables & don't have a lot of 8-2 or worse matchups.

Yeah, I like that definition.

 

[Falconv1.0]

This is actually a discussion on which is more balanced, unless the title is a lie.

And I made a topic about viability that I would like to see get some real ****ing discussion.

And TehBo, that's a perfect way to sum things up.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I'm still questioning peoples definition of a viable character.

Some people are taking it way too vaguely or way too loosely. Then we get the people with bias who skew one games viability list to make it look like crap while the others is much broader.

 

[RDK]

I'm still questioning peoples definition of a viable character.

Some people are taking it way too vaguely or way too loosely. Then we get the people with bias who skew one games viability list to make it look like crap while the others is much broader.

As you're obviously alluding to me with that last jab, let's take an objective look at the most recent tier list for Melee, and Ankoku's character ranking list. While Ankoku's list is not an official tier list, it at least gives us an idea of what characters are used in tournaments; at best, it's a tier list precursor, as we don't have a current one for Brawl yet.

Melee:

1. Fox
2. Falco

3. Sheik
4. Marth
5. Peach

6. Captain Falcon
7. Ice Climbers
8. Samus
9. Dr. Mario
10. Jigglypuff
11. Mario
12. Ganondorf
13. Link
14. Luigi
15. Donkey Kong
16. Roy
17. Young Link
18. Pikachu

19. Yoshi
20. Zelda
21. Mr. Game and Watch
22. Ness
23. Bowser
24. Kirby
25. Pichu
26. Mewtwo

Brawl:

S: Snake, Meta Knight, King Dedede

A: Mr. Game & Watch, Marth, Wario

B: ROB, Falco, Lucario, Olimar

C: Donkey Kong, Fox, Wolf, Kirby, Ice Climbers, Pit

D: Ness, Zero Suit Samus, Diddy Kong, Peach, Pikachu, Zelda, Toon Link

E: Samus, Bowser, Luigi, Ike, Jigglypuff, Lucas, Sonic, Mario, SheikZelda, Link, Pokémon

Trainer, Captain Falcon

U: Ganondorf, Sheik, Yoshi

The red text indicates top tier in Melee and supposed top tier in Brawl. The green text indicates high tier in Melee and supposed high tier in Brawl. Blue indicates mid-to-low tier in Melee and supposed mid-to-low tier in Brawl. Yellow indicates bottom tier in Melee and supposed bottom tier in Brawl.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

That list is interesting, as while there are more characters supposedly viable in Brawl, there are also more characters that are supposedly inviable, and the inviable proportion is greater in Brawl than the inviable proportion of characters in melee.

Its too bad that Ankoku's list is based so strongly off of character popularity, otherwise it would be proof of something very interesting.

This is actually a discussion on which is more balanced, unless the title is a lie.

And I made a topic about viability that I would like to see get some real ****ing discussion.

And TehBo, that's a perfect way to sum things up.

Set up a link to it in this thread. I'll be there.

 

[Fletch]

As you're obviously alluding to me with that last jab, let's take an objective look at the most recent tier list for Melee, and Ankoku's character ranking list. While Ankoku's list is not an official tier list, it at least gives us an idea of what characters are used in tournaments; at best, it's a tier list precursor, as we don't have a current one for Brawl yet.

Melee:

1. Fox
2. Falco

3. Sheik
4. Marth
5. Peach

6. Captain Falcon
7. Ice Climbers
8. Samus
9. Dr. Mario
10. Jigglypuff
11. Mario
12. Ganondorf
13. Link
14. Luigi
15. Donkey Kong
16. Roy
17. Young Link
18. Pikachu

19. Yoshi
20. Zelda
21. Mr. Game and Watch
22. Ness
23. Bowser
24. Kirby
25. Pichu
26. Mewtwo

Brawl:

S: Snake, Meta Knight, King Dedede

A: Mr. Game & Watch, Marth, Wario

B: ROB, Falco, Lucario, Olimar

C: Donkey Kong, Fox, Wolf, Kirby, Ice Climbers, Pit

D: Ness, Zero Suit Samus, Diddy Kong, Peach, Pikachu, Zelda, Toon Link

E: Samus, Bowser, Luigi, Ike, Jigglypuff, Lucas, Sonic, Mario, SheikZelda, Link, Pokémon

Trainer, Captain Falcon

U: Ganondorf, Sheik, Yoshi

The red text indicates top tier in Melee and supposed top tier in Brawl. The green text indicates high tier in Melee and supposed high tier in Brawl. Blue indicates mid-to-low tier in Melee and supposed mid-to-low tier in Brawl. Yellow indicates bottom tier in Melee and supposed bottom tier in Brawl.

I agree with the idea behind your post, it's just too bad the Melee tier list is kind of outdated. At minimum, I would include Sheik and Marth in the top with Falco and Fox.

 

[IrArby]

So would most of us agree that Brawl has 5-6 characters who are nearly always viable against each other and also has "situational" high/mid tiers that act as counterpicks to only 1 or 2 certain characters in that top 5-6? This seems to make the most sense to me.

In Melee something similar existed only the 6-7 that were almost always viable against themselves is not only a greater # by itself (when compared to it's parralell in Brawl) but it is proportionately greater as well when compared against the whole cast. In Melee, there are still characters (both mid and bottom) that have decent or at least plausible matchups against the high/tops and besides counters actually count for a lot less in this game. Every character can combo thus every character can punish mistakes.

Furthermore, no character has the near fullproof option eliminating abilities that some have in Brawl. Take Melee Falco who has probably the best approach in the game. Its still punished by characters who know their options and can actually use them. If your playing C.Falcon against Snake and you know your options then that just means you know exactly how ****ed you are especially if he know his options too.

And fletch71011 is right the Melee tier list is dated since the top 4 especially are pretty much even its just dependant on whos playing them at this point and other characters are over/under-rated in general.
Really, the only accurate way is to just have individual matchups since Brawls hard counters tend to **** everything up.

 

[Lord Aether]

Not quite. I first point out that top tiers vs low tiers in Melee aren't as easy as people are making them out to be to establish that low-tiers having to work hard to beat upper-tiers isn't new to Brawl, and then go on to try and explain how Snake and MK aren't as broken as people make them out to be. I realize that personal experience isn't the best examples to make, but I'm not sure what else can be done since we've already theorycrafted to death.

It's how hard they have to work to beat the upper tiers that's the problem. The more balance there is, the less hard people have to work to reverse a lopsided matchup.

I address this in my last point. It's not impossible, people just like to say it is.

It's a load harder in Brawl than Melee, however.

I explained in the last paragraph how an incompetent MK is no threat to someone who's competent enough to know the range of his attacks. As I said, people who play Snake and MK expecting an easy win tend to play rather predictably.

I'm not talking about Snake, I'm talking about Meta Knight. You have to be a huge ******* to not be able to beat a piece of **** like Captain Falcon with Meta Knight no matter what the skill; you can be completely incompetent and repetitive to beat Captain Falcon. Because the matchup is so, SO lopsided in comparison to Fox vs whoever sucks at fighting him.

Skill plays less of a factor in Brawl; about 75% of the match is how the matchup is like. In Melee I reckon the matchup mattered less and the skill mattered more; I mean, how else would Gimpy be able to kick much *** with a ****ty character like Bowser in Melee?

Also, why do people keep acting like Mewtwo had a fighting chance against a good Fox? A really good Mewtwo could possibly have a fighing chance against a decent Shiek, but... That's about it. To be blunt, a good Fox shouldn't be losing to a good Mewtwo.

But a good Captain Falcon will lose to a crappy Meta Knight. A crappy Fox will be losing to a good Mewtwo.

Anyway wouldn't a ratio of who's viable to who's unviable make more sense than listing characters :? If supposedly the "big six" were the ONLY viables in melee (not true obviously) and there were about 7 viables in Brawl, wouldn't Melee be better in this case because about 24% is viable in Melee as opposed to 20% in Brawl? Or have I not been reading back enough.

 

[Fawriel]

Sorry, Falconv1.0, I stopped regularly checking the forums ever since Brawl came out, I'm too lazy to follow two giant discussions about balance. ^^;

Well, the only really accurate way to tell which characters are viable is to have a couple of judges... say, two or three pro players who know the ins and outs of the most obviously amazing characters. We would of course have to decide which ARE the most obviously amazing. MK, Snake, G&W... I don't keep up enough to know who else falls under this.
Then we'd have to choose the best players of each character underneath them and pit them against the judges. Several times. And then we'd have to develop some kind of formula to determine what degree of victory vs. the tops would constitute "viability"...

... which sounds kinda impossible.
Or we'll just have to keep watching tournaments and try to settle on how well a character has to do against who in order to be considered viable.

A character who only counters one of the top tiers should still be considered viable as a counterpick, right?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Anyway wouldn't a ratio of who's viable to who's unviable make more sense than listing characters :? If supposedly the "big six" were the ONLY viables in melee (not true obviously) and there were about 7 viables in Brawl, wouldn't Melee be better in this case because about 24% is viable in Melee as opposed to 20% in Brawl? Or have I not been reading back enough.

That not necessarily true.

The main question is how do you determine viability? If you use percentage you ignore the fact Brawl has a bigger cast, thus putting favor towards Melee. If you use numbers then Brawls bigger cast will skew the results, putting favor towards Brawl. Even when you use a tier list, just saying from X character and up is viable then a good Bowser shows up at tournaments and proves people wrong.

 

[Dark Sonic]

That not necessarily true.

The main question is how do you determine viability? If you use percentage you ignore the fact Brawl has a bigger cast, thus putting favor towards Melee. If you use numbers then Brawls bigger cast will skew the results, putting favor towards Brawl. Even when you use a tier list, just saying from X character and up is viable then a good Bowser shows up at tournaments and proves people wrong.

Bowser is not a viable character. I don't know why people keep using Gimpyfish as an example, but seriously Bowser sucks (in melee). Azen winning with Pichu does not prove that Pichu is good, mearly that Azen was just that much better than his opponent.

And using percentages is perfectly fair. Brawl has more characters, so in order to be as balanced as melee it must have more viable characters (proportionally).

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Bowser is not a viable character. I don't know why people keep using Gimpyfish as an example, but seriously Bowser sucks (in melee). Azen winning with Pichu does not prove that Pichu is good, mearly that Azen was just that much better than his opponent.

It was a hypothetical example. Nowhere in that post does it say I was using Gimpyfish.

 

[Fawriel]

Bowser is not a viable character. I don't know why people keep using Gimpyfish as an example, but seriously Bowser sucks (in melee). Azen winning with Pichu does not prove that Pichu is good, mearly that Azen was just that much better than his opponent.

No, no, no. The question is not "which character is good", but "which character is viable". Of course Bowser sucks comparatively. But if that isn't stopping some of his **** good players from consistently beating some other **** good players using high-tier characters, he's still viable.

"viable" according to dictionary.com:
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology.
a. physically fitted to live.
b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
3. Botany. able to live and grow.
4. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses: a period of history that few teachers can make viable for students.
5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
6. having the ability to grow, expand, develop, etc.: a new and viable country.


A viable character should be defined as one who is technically capable of winning relatively consistently against mostly similarly skilled opponents using higher-ranked characters.

Gimpyfish could consistently place high with Bowser, so the character, while comparatively crappy, is "practicable", although he obviously takes a hell of a lot of work to be good with.
Mewtwo is not viable because even the ones most skilled with him would never dare to use him against serious opponents if money is on the line, because they would most likely lose.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Which is better: having the higher percentage of viable characters, or having the most viable characters?

I believe the latter is greater, as more characters means more variety.

Also, once again, I would like to point out that much of melee's viability spurs from the similarities that all characters share, more than the actual relative abilities of the characters. If melee has a greater number of viable characters because they can all do the same ATs, and not because their unique talents balance out, then melee's characters are inherently unequal. They only make up for this by all being able to do the same tricks.

 

[JigglyZelda003]

Mewtwo is not viable because even the ones most skilled with him would never dare to use him against serious opponents if money is on the line, because they would most likely lose.

but Mewtwo, even though not viable, still stood a better chance against Fox than CF stands against Snake or MK right?

Which is better: having the higher percentage of viable characters, or having the most viable characters?

I believe the latter is greater, as more characters means more variety.

Also, once again, I would like to point out that much of melee's viability spurs from the similarities that all characters share, more than the actual relative abilities of the characters. If melee has a greater number of viable characters because they can all do the same ATs, and not because their unique talents balance out, then melee's characters are inherently unequal. They only make up for this by all being able to do the same tricks.

if there are more viable characters then why all i hear are Snake and MK winning all the time, with a few other higher characters like Marth only winning ocasionally? sure all the characters shared WD and L-cancelling in Melee, but it didn't work the same for everyone. Luigi's WD went like really far while the IC went almost nowhere. Fox and Falco had lots more technical ability than like all the others in Melee too. so melee's cast had universal tricks/AT's but they aren't applied the same way for all characters.

 

[Yuna]

Melee: Fox, Falco, Shiek, Falcon, Jiggs, IC, Peach.

Brawl: Snake, MK, GW, Pika, ROB, Lucario, TL, Falco, Wario, Diddy, Olimar.

Less balance, more viable characters.

Please, stop giving me headaches.

Marth not being viable in Melee? Stop spouting off ignorant opinion, please. For one thing, Lucario, not that viable. And where are Zelda and Pit, anyway?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Please, stop giving me headaches.

Marth not being viable in Melee? Stop spouting off ignorant opinion, please. For one thing, Lucario, not that viable. And where are Zelda and Pit, anyway?

I think he wrote it up from his head rather than writing what has been concluded.

And Lucario not viable, wut?

 

[Corigames]

So I guess he's saying that Melee was more balanced because characters were all the same or had the same tricks?
Uh...
What?
The tricks Fox has and the ones that Falco have are completely different, and they are CLONES of each other! Marth can combo like no other and has the ability to move around gracefully and gimp amazingly. He's very unique. Sheik is just a raging machine of legs and arms, can stun lock you with needles, and has some amazing auto combos. Peach uses her turnips, great recovery, stupendous down and up smash, and super forward smash to gain control of the field so that she can get to the part where she edgehogs you. Falcon uses ****, which combos into ****, which finishes into ****. ICs are all about the grabs and downsmash while staying out of reach and mindgaming to do so. Samus is a barrage of projectiles while doing strong close-combat attacks to go along with it. Also, she has one of the most diverse recoveries in that game.

Some people may not agree with what I said, and if they don't, they just prove my point further. There is a lot of diversity in Melee. Two people generally CAN'T play alike. You can't watch videos of Hugs and play exactly like he does in Melee. However, I bet I can grab the best Snake locally and do exactly what he does within the week because there are less options and viable tactics. Yuo do what you can to win and people have it down to a science. (I know not all of that is 100% true, but it is close enough for me)

 

[Rhubarbo]

In Brawl, you can only legitimately win with the top 6. This pretty much limits the roster to those characters (unless you're all for losing). In Melee, you could pretty much dip into the bottom tier and still win (maybe not with Mewtwo and Pichu).

Brawl is hindered in so many ways: Balance, skill, stages and physics. It's like Melee, but with less characters tourney viable, requiring less skill, with more or less the same stages (I personally think that Melee had a better stage roster), and the physics are balls. This game sucks.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So I guess he's saying that Melee was more balanced because characters were all the same or had the same tricks?
Uh...
What?
The tricks Fox has and the ones that Falco have are completely different, and they are CLONES of each other! Marth can combo like no other and has the ability to move around gracefully and gimp amazingly. He's very unique. Sheik is just a raging machine of legs and arms, can stun lock you with needles, and has some amazing auto combos. Peach uses her turnips, great recovery, stupendous down and up smash, and super forward smash to gain control of the field so that she can get to the part where she edgehogs you. Falcon uses ****, which combos into ****, which finishes into ****. ICs are all about the grabs and downsmash while staying out of reach and mindgaming to do so. Samus is a barrage of projectiles while doing strong close-combat attacks to go along with it. Also, she has one of the most diverse recoveries in that game.

They do have a few similar tricks, but I have agree with you. As a Melee Falco Player, Falco doesn't play his tricks the same as Fox.

Some people may not agree with what I said, and if they don't, they just prove my point further. There is a lot of diversity in Melee. Two people generally CAN'T play alike. You can't watch videos of Hugs and play exactly like he does in Melee. However, I bet I can grab the best Snake locally and do exactly what he does within the week because there are less options and viable tactics. Yuo do what you can to win and people have it down to a science. (I know not all of that is 100% true, but it is close enough for me)

...I hope to the love of god your joking.

 

[Corigames]

Well, what I'm saying also has to do with the short life-time of Brawl. There has been less time to experiment with everything in every situation, so there is less known. However, certain strings of moves and certain moves in general are considered "safe" and those are the ones that everyone is using. If you can get those down, which to use and which to not, and then learn to properly use them, then you have made it to the same level as those around you. It's that simple. Character matchups aren't much different from each other. I can't take my Pit and say I'm going to do anything different VS Luigi that I do against Snake, just because the same moves in both matchups are still "safe" and will, most likely, always will be.

That's what I mean.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I think he wrote it up from his head rather than writing what has been concluded.

And Lucario not viable, wut?

That list of people is a good reason to have him killed, me thinks.

Seriously, say hi to Ken Hoang and Azen, plox. Good God.

 

[Fletch]

That list of people is a good reason to have him killed, me thinks.

Seriously, say hi to Ken Hoang and Azen, plox. Good God.

Just because Azen can place well with Lucario does not make him viable. Azen is the exception to the rule, he could place very well with pretty much every character in Melee, and appears to be able to do the same in Brawl. If you're using this logic, I could say that Chu used to counterpick people with Pichu (the 2nd to last character on the Melee tier list) and then say that Pichu is viable along with every other character in Melee sans Mewtwo.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Sorry, I was rushed when I wrote my list. If I were to write it again though, I would include Marth as viable in both melee and Brawl.

Also, why do you think Lucario is not viable? In a lot of ways, he's melee Marth (minus wave-dashing, L-cancelling, etc.) with an aura ability. Lucario can combo, chain grab, and has tipper attacks. His F-smash is about the same length as melee Marth's, and his air and ground game are about as strong as marth's, sacrificing about an inch of range for a projectile.

 

[Corigames]

And Lucario has an instant gimp, has great mobility, spacing options, and... oh wait.

Don't compare any Brawl character to a Melee character unless you want to see how bad they really are.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Don't compare Brawl's options to those of melee, hmmm that is good advise - however, that does not explain why everyone thinks Lucario is overrated. On the Lucario boards, we believe that the only reason Lucario is not doing better is he has far fewer fans than characters like Snake and MK.

 

[Corigames]

I think Lucario is an amazing character. He has staying power, strong moves, the aura thing, tricky moves that extend past the animation, and a small CG. He is a very well-rounded character. However, Melee Marth he is not.